I thought we were discussing science not faith. Obviously if you are using faith you can believe anything you want and I can't argue with faith. Faith does have some spotty history though. Good ideas according to faith, Burning people alive, crashing airliners into office buildings, killing healthcare providers etc. Then there's the problem of faith in who? You mentioned thousands of people who believe in creation. Can't argue with that statement but there are hundreds of millions who believe that the creation theory includes the world sitting on the back of a really big turtle. Does that sound more of less silly than flammable shrubbery telling you what to do.You also haven't answered my questions about why your intelligent designer doesn't seem able to design very well. Why creat all those people who believe all those untrue religeons?As for insulting you, don't feel bad, Aristotle, one of the great minds of western civilisation, was wrong about everything. It took hundreds of years of science to undo the weird stuff he made up.Also in science we try not to take things personally.

First of all, there is evidence for Creation, as I have shown in many posts on this website.Second, about why God created people, who do not worship him, God doesn't want mindless zombies, he wants people to accept him because they feel grateful to him. Think about it, if you were able to create beings capable of their own thoughts, wouldn't you rather create them, rather than some machine that tells you that you are awesome every morning?As to the insults I am not merely complaining, I take no offense at your insults, but I like to think that I am conversing with intelligent people, who back up their claims with evidence, rather than people who just call names.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

Still no answer for why the design is so bad and seems to be overly dependent on designs carried forward from earlier ancestral forms. In evolution it's called evolutionary baggage and it's just what you would expect.

The chiropractic industry is based on the lower back pain that humans are so prone to.Only an idiot would have the path of air into the lungs cross the path of food and water into the stomache. Serious choking hazard.On the subject of breathing our lungs breath in and out through the same path, this mixes new air with old air which is very inefficient. Birds have a better system that uses a series of air sacs to push air through the lung in only one direction.Heck if I was designing humans I'd make them able to fly and photosynthesize and rationally control our population.I'd also suggest that sex should be more satisfying with long term committed partners than first time flings and adultery.Why viruses?Why birth defects?Why cancer?

There may be reasons for that setup, as there were for the appendix, which man thought was useless, until it was discovered that it had many purposes. Also there would be many problems, with man being that way, and what do you mean by rationally control our population?As to your questions, let it suffice to say that if man lived his life the way that God intended him to, we would have none of those problems.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

When you say "there may be reasons" in science you are then expected to say what those reasons are. I'm curious, I know what the appendix (Cecum) does in other species. Slow fermentation of fiber.What are those great things that it does in humans that would outweigh the intense pain and death associated with it? Why can't God make it work for us without the apendicitis? In science attempting to avoid answering questions makes people assume you don't know what you are talking about. Better to say "interesting question, I don't know". That way people will at least think you gave it some thought.As you are new to science I will give an example.God created everything therefore God created cancer. He gave us cancer to make us appreciate life more. Not obviously very convincing to those who get cancer but it at least follows the right form and is logical.

Hypercycles, as an overarching organization of autocatalytic sets, have been proposed as a model for the origin of life (Eigen and Schuster 1977) and are explained at Principia Cybernetica Web. However, complex hypercycles only exist as computer simulations. More than thirty years after the introduction of the hypothesis, there is no experimental evidence whatsoever for complex, possibly prebiotic hypercycles. This makes them still nothing more than mere speculation and, while the hypothesis has been a recurring theme in the scientific literature about the origin of life, it is not frequently mentioned anymore in recent publications in the field.So far only one, very simple, hypercycle has been generated more than 10 years ago in the laboratory with two self-replicating peptides by the group of Ghadiri (Lee et al. 1997). However, these authors posted a correction (Lee et al. 1998) where they state: “Although the kinetic data suggest the intermediary of higher-order species in the autocatalytic processes, the present system should not be referred to as an example of a minimal hypercycle in the absence of direct experimental evidence for the auto-catalytic cross-coupling between replicators.”There is a single report on a naturally occurring hypercycle (Eigen et al. 1991). But this example, relating to the infection cycle of an RNA bacteriophage, obviously is not prebiotic – the cycle evolved on the complexity of living beings as template.